Thursday, March 29, 2007

* Many of the posts by "Independent Thought" were made by a fool using the name of a another poster

I don't have to try again. If you had told me at first about the new concept of 'Empire,' or modern empire, we wouldn't have even had that conversation. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 5:12 pm | #

You ever think that you may actually have a valid argument if you took out the vicious language? Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 5:13 pm | #

Yeah, I believe you. If their is a new conception of 'empire' out there, you can see how it would conflict with the traditional conception of empire. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 5:14 pm | #

First of all, as my name may inply, I am not a Republican - I am an Independent. But, I am spry. The far-left blames everything on Bush, which isn't exactly fair and balanced. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 5:16 pm | #

Are you that pedantic when studies that claim 700,000 Iraqis are released? I hope so. As far as my estimates - yes, estimates - how far off would it be? America has lost the most soldiers. The Lancet claims 700,000 Iraqis have died. How about this instead: 3,000 + x/700,000. I guess the real question is this: how big is x? Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 5:22 pm | #

The Lancet study of a year ago claiming 650,000 dead has made the Lancet once again a laughingstock and hurt the professional reputations of Johns Hopkins vital statisticians who did the study, badly.Their report was not peer-reviewed but rushed into publication to influence elections, something the Lancet editors all but admitted in explaining why they did not follow protocol to have a major study peer-reviewed.

When it was peer - reviewed, other demographers and vital statisticians found the submission completely flawed on methodology and lack of adequate sampling numbers. Also, for not questioning the results being off tenfold from other reputable studies by other NGOs and Iraq itself.

Foreign fighters (besides the U.S.) are killing people in Iraq. Sunnis are killing Shiites, and vice versa. Shiites are killing Shiites. And criminal gangs are preying on everybody else — all because of the vicious stupidity of that sociopathic moron in the Oval Office.ProfessorDuh

Gee, real bright Prof "Duhhh"! Explain when Bush organized those factions of insane Arabs killing Arabs. Bush giving marching orders to Sunnis, foreign fighters, Shiites to do their normal bloodthirsty butchery. Arabs doing what they do for over a thousand years to one another. If no infidels are handy or are too well armed to kill, the Arab dilemma is to enjoy peace or kill other Arabs...so they decide as usual to work on the heretics, apostates, raid other Arab tribes for booty, heads, and ransom --- and its-ALL-Bush's fault!

They just accept the stats as a matter of faith because that's what they want to believe. Or, they try to separate combatants from noncombatants, which is utterly impossible to do. It makes sense to them, though, because they want to believe that America is an oppressor nation that is killing innocent Iraqis. You have to look at total body count because it is impossible to separate combatants from noncombatants. That sounds right, doesn't finalfurlong? Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 5:29 pm | #

Why can't it be about both? Hussein was taking the revenue he earned from selling oil and was building palaces. Meanwhile, the Iraqis were suffering. Maybe the Iraqi citizens should benefit from their country's oil reserves. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 5:35 pm | #

But all the Iraq nit-picking and minor US casualties (as real wars go) may be soon overshadowed by real, unrestrained major war with Iran.

The same old, same old Lefty debate on years old Iraqi issues may end with Iran loosing it and either starting the shooting war, abusing their hostages in a way NATO cannot accept, or some insane Islamic Iranian zealot commander somewhere punches out a missile that hits Israel or a US warship.

While the most dangerous job on the planet would then become a sailor on an Iranian naval vessel, the Iranians have positioned plenty of sleeper cells in the West and the Quds Revolutionary Forces and allies Hezbollah can do in thousands of Westerners before they and their human rights lawyers are defeated.

The debate about Iraq reminds me of the Lefty obsession about the illegality of helping Britain in WWII and the nuances of moral equivalency between Britain and the Nazis conflict before the Germans invaded the Lefty's favorite country.

Then everything changed. All the Lefty cheering of Germans bombing the UK in the Blitz because Stalin said it was right and just in fighting imperialism ended. When the first German tank hit their beloved Soviet Union's soil, it all changed for the Left.

If war with Iran comes, many of us conservatives and moderates that have become disgusted with Bush's bumbling will have to hope he can do something right again after 5 years of failure. But there will be no question of our loyalties being with the West. Anti-American Lefties will have some serious moments, though. They will be forced to choose loyalties... Cedarford | 03.28.07 - 6:02 pm | #

Back that up Cedarford. Who, in the West, cheered Germany on during the blitz?UKBristolDave

Communists. Even Jewish ones. Because after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, Stalin instructed minions to hew to the Party line that the imperialistic Brits were a greater menace than his "peace partner" Hitler.

While some on the American Left did find fascism still awful enough following Ethiopia and the Spanish Civil War that they could not overlook past clashes between Nazis and "progressives" and actually "broke" with Stalin - communist solidarity got most to fall behind Stalin joining with Hitler. So US communists and many fellow travelers dutifully denounced efforts to help Britain, even cheer the "destruction of the center of global imperialism" as London burned. Odd alliances of Jewish communists endorsing German Bund groups denunciations of the Roosevelt-Churchill relationship. All that was at the height of the 1940 Blitz.

That all changed for American Comunists in June 1941, when Hitler invaded their beloved Soviet Union and the German-Soviet alliance ended. Then the Lefties could be anti-Nazi with Stalin's clear approval and endorse measures to help the USSR's new "bestest buddy", the UK.

Hey Cedarhead, why don't you either STFU or give some sources to back up your BS?john t

Still too stupid to know how to look up information, ey, Johnt?

And still too stupid to say what info you want.

You repeat the same statement on any thread you visit, with no clarification. Just paste in a different target. It is a brainless troll statement. Cedarford | 03.28.07 - 6:43 pm | #

The left is correct.Just withdraw from the Middle East and leave these peace loving religion of peace sweethearts alone.They are only sitting on the worlds largest oil fields.But hey, they saw Al Gores movie and now they want nuclear power plants because they are enivronmentalists.You see they realize that we only have a few years left because of Global Warming.Let them have their nukes.Hell, why should we be the only ones with them.After they nuke those pesky jews off the Planet and send out a suitcase nuke to finish off NYC,MAYBE THEN PRESIDENT HILLARY AND YOU DEMOCRATS WILL GET THE MESSAGE. Neocontroll | 03.28.07 - 6:48 pm | #

The sad part is, it has been trivilized by the left and the anger of the American people is gone.I'm gone for now. Neocontroll | 03.28.07 - 7:08 pm | #

Lend lease.Resurrection of the Draft in America, 1940.The secret Naval war with the Nazis, July 1941-Dec 1941.Over 10,000 Americans volunteering with the UK or Canadian armed forces to fight the Nazis before Dec 1941. One was my wife's grandfather, whose Canadian uniform w/medals is a family keepsake, now.Extensive US media coverage of the Blitz. Ever hear of Edmund R. Murrow?Hollywood falling in line as communist writers and moguls began mking pro-British movies following launch of Operation Barbarossa.

If you don't believe that, use your history degree to look up the Nazi declaration of war against the USA of Dec 11th. It is a long and detailed list of covert US help of Britain. Dozens of detailed violations of the Neutrality Act. Everything the Germans said was true, FDR admitted later. Cedarford | 03.28.07 - 7:28 pm | #

One of my undergraduate degrees is in history. WWII is one of those periods I inhaled...

From what you've said, you agree that the US basically didn't care about WWII until Pearl Harbour. I think we both agree on that point yes?

We cared, but not enough to line our sons up for their spot in what we thought would be another European WWI-style meat grinder with millions of deaths. Even in WWI we were reluctant to get involved in Europe's mess - at the time, we still had a bunch of old men who had seen mega-slaughter up close in our Civil War.

Of course, WWI was more important in changing everything than either our Civil War or WWII.

But I have difficulty reading about WWI battles without wanting to reach back in time and throttle some people to death, the waste and ineptitude make me so angry. The Somme and Gallipoli are right at the top.

Knowing about those old wars gives perspective on the Iraq War. 3,000 deaths was a bad hour in those conflicts with populations well under our present numbers. In WWII, the Soviet Union lost an an average of 17,000 soldiers and civilians a day. The annual losses of soldiers in combat and accidents under Bush II is less than half the annual rate of soldier deaths in Jimmy Carter's peacetime military.In fact, in every year since the start of WWII, only Clinton had fewer annual military fatalities than Bush II. Cedarford | 03.28.07 - 9:22 pm | #

Look it up Johnt. You are either too stupid or lazy to explore such knowledge on your own.We know you haven't even tried.Just tell me that you cannot use Google, cannot find info, don't have a 8-year old in the house that can tell you how. If that's the case, maybe then I can give you a tutorial...We also know that no Lefty blubbered or cared a bit about the higher annual deaths back then. Dead soldiers are just convenient props for Lefties to use as anti-war propaganda tools.

UKBristolDave I put my hands up here - someone on this site has accused us Europeans of being pussies.

I'll confess to using "Euroweenies", but not in context of avoiding the stupid, stupid valor of marches to slaughter. More akin to the European need to find moral equivalency between Nazis and Israelis, Americans and Soviets/Al Qaeda, etc. And about their self-suicidal love of criminal & enemy rights, the multiculti induced self-loathing of being Westerners. Europeans so guilty of opposing equally valid cultural expressions like slave-trading nations, commie butchers, fascists, now the radical Islamist butchers.Europe has indeed lost their guts for now - with respect to the predators that are now out there to unravel all positive things the Euros have done over the centuries, intimidate them into shame for being European, or white. Out to effectively colonize their lands and set up rival cultures.. cedarford | 03.28.07 - 11:33 pm | #

Bush II is less than half the annual rate of soldier deaths in Jimmy Carter's peacetime military.In fact, in every year since the start of WWII, only Clinton had fewer annual military fatalities than Bush II.Cedarford | 03.28.07 - 9:22 pm | #

WTF does that have to do with the fact that combat losses under Bush II have occurred in an unnecessary war? Answer: Nothing. But nice attempt to obfuscate, the gullible may buy your argument, but I'm not buying.FrankC |

WTF does Bush II having less than half the annual number of dead soldiers as Carter have to do with Carter& Co allowing so many to die? While all you old Lefties sleepwalked through more than double the number of dead, until Reagan began fixing matters? 770 a year under Bush is "intolerable", "shattering" - 2000 a year under Carter you weren't even aware of??

It is simply just another valuable benchmark to show Lefties don't give a shit about soldiers dying...just those doing so under Bush that you anti-Americans can exploit their deaths for advancing your political agenda. cedarford | 03.28.07 - 11:42 pm | #

Ah, yes, the Blame-America-First crowd rears its ugly little head once again.

You probably think the innocent civilians in the WTC were "little Eichmanns" who deserved their fate.

You, like most liberals, are so filled with hate for America that you rejoice in the 9/11 attacks.

I would expect no other reaction from someone as juvenile as you.Godzilla104 | 03.28.07 - 3:54 pm | #

First of all, the Constitution gives Cingress the power to declare war, which doesn't have to involve the use of 'declare war.' Anyways, if Congress didn't give Bush the authoruty to invade Iraq, what did Congress think the military was going to do? Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 3:56 pm | #

...and what did they think the President would do with all the funding for the Iraq war that they continue to vote for? Enrico Fermi | Homepage | 03.28.07 - 3:58 pm | #

I find it hard to believe that liberals in America actually support oppressive, religious regimes over their own country. I am baffled, actually. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 3:58 pm | #

Yes. I assure you that I have read the Constitution more times than you have read birthday cards. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 4:01 pm | #

Congress kept funding the war even after Saddam's weapons were destroyed. Why do the Democrats keep sending Bush more war money to this day? Enrico Fermi | Homepage | 03.28.07 - 4:04 pm | #

Well, on one level, I guess you are referring to the resolution Clintion got in 1998, with full Congressional support by Democrats, saying that the stated policy of the US was regime change in Iraq because the then-present regime was too dangerous.One reason why Hillary, among others, signed on to the Authorization for Use of Force (AUF) which constitutional scholars say is the equivalent of a declaration of war - a phrase now made into an an unfortunate US Constitutional anachronism by the UN CHarter specifically prohibiting declarations of war.

We could legally declare war, but to do so would require us to end our membership in the UN.That is why no nation has formally declared war since the Soviet Union did so in July of 1945 against Japan.Ever since, nations have had to use euphemisms like "police action" "authorization for force", "endorsement of legitimate military self defense measures".

Anti-American Lefties that go all anally retentive on the outdated words have three alternatives:

1. Say the Sacred Parchment is so correct that we will withdraw from the UN so we can use the "Magic Words" of declaring war.2. Resolve declaring war is illegal and never go to war - even when Americans are being killed remorselessly by an enemy and our vital interests require us to defend ourselves.3. Change the Constitution to "Congress shall debate and authorize use of force" to comply with UN verbiage..Or just accept that Constitutional scholars and SCOTUS, obliquely (numerous rulings on legality of a Draft in undeclared war or application of wartime laws) has ruled it means the same thing.

But we all know it it just a semantic indulgence by America-haters fully happy that the unsaid words of the Constitution imply emenations of the penumbra making gay anal sex a Right. The leap to interpreting AUF means declaration of war is far less than leaps activists make saying the unsaid words of the Constitution can be interpreted to mean abortion, gay buggery, affirmative action, a commerce clause that gives the Feds carte blanche to be in all business of the States..... Cedarford | 03.28.07 - 4:08 pm | #

When you say America is evil and Bush is a murderer, yes, you are then supporting the terrorists. You are saying the same things that Iranian state-run media says about us. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 4:08 pm | #

Well said. You notice how quickly they become 'strict-constructionists' as soon as they have to debate something as inane as what words to use when the Congress declares war? LOL. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 4:10 pm | #

Kevin, you are so clueless. Bush hasn't murdered anyone. Look it up. You still have not answered the question where someone "guarenteed" it would only be 6 months. Or, did you make that up? Steve | 03.28.07 - 4:14 pm | #

You know, we will never be able to attain the far-left goal of 'no borders, no countries, no Gods' as long as recalcitrant regimes such as Iran exist. Is it that moral relativism thing that is keeping you from supporting the team? I wonder if you people have a counterpart in Iran? Hope so. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 4:14 pm |

You have to remember: absolutely anything that happens will be some how blames on Bush. What Claudo is trying to tell you is that Congress would be fine if that mean Bush wouldn't use the veto. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 4:29 pm | #

As Cedarford stated earlier, the Clinton administration was dedicated to regime change in Iraq. That was just another thing Wild Bill didn't get around to doing. The far-left acts as though regime changes are bad. If we could get rid of a few of these fucked up regimes, the world would be a better place. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 4:36 pm | #

Who guaranteed six months, phil kevin?

Can't answer the question, troll?

Figures...expect a liberal know-nothing to back up their claims and they run. Enrico Fermi | Homepage | 03.28.07 - 4:37 pm | #

IT and Enrico, you ran off all the liberals. I guess they all had to go back to school. Steve | 03.28.07 - 4:37 pm | #

Dead on.

It is worth remembering that the two authors of the Constitution, Jefferson and Madison, authorized undeclared wars on the Barbary pirates and Indian tribes in open warfare with us. No declaration of war for the Founders, and Congress, full of Constitution signatories at the time, agreed it was fully acceptable.

Same with many other wars where again and again, both the Executive and Congress addressed and debated the Constitutional language and was fine, based on circumstances, with not formally declaring war.

The "mandate" of pro-abortion, pro-gay sex, pro-affirmative action Lefties to suddenly insist that in one sentence only literal language is proper is one of the all-time laughable red herrings.

While NYC still smoked, Sen Diane Feinstein led forces that really, really wanted a formal declaration of war against Al Qaeda. The hearing of Constitutional lawyers and scholars and Feinsteins consternation showing as she learned what a big red herring she had bought before was memorable.

First, they told her that declaring war was illegal, because Al Qaeda was not a nation, and the Constitution specifically said only a nation can be subject to declarations of war. And why starting with Jefferson, decisions to do undeclared war was partially based on that flaw the Founders had in not envisioning war had be fought against pirates or non-state parties.

Then one said they once did allow "letters of Marque" to have mercenaries fight pirates, so an alternative would have been the US sending Mercs...but unfortunately, the Constitution says international treaties trump the Constitution, and we signed the Treaty of Lisbon in 1848 barring Letters of Marque.

Feinstein again pleaded for any way where we could "massage" Al Qaeda into being a nation so the "Magic Words" could be uttered by her.No.The scholars and lawyers pointed out the UN CHarter. To "formally declare war" for the 1st time since the UN was founded - would require Congress to renounce the UN Treaty, withdraw, give up our Security Council seat permanently.

Sen Feinstein did not like that, and said she had many "people of conscience" that insisted on the literal words...

Too bad, the panel said. Fix the Constitution via a 1-2 year Amending process while the killers enjoyed safe haven in Afghanistan, debate the withdrawal from the UN also with a new Amendment saying terrorists are effectively the same as a nation....or just do what has been done dozens of times...say the Executive or the Executive with Congressional vote - can authorize use of military force.

To her credit, Sen Feinstein is capable of learning. She is more a true liberal Democrat than an Islamic enemy-lover. She finally agreed with the Constitutional judges and scholars being right and voting for the Afghanistan AUF. Cedarford | 03.28.07 - 4:37 pm | #

LOL! You can count on liberals to run from a fight any time there's more than one of us giving the opposing viewpoint. Enrico Fermi | Homepage | 03.28.07 - 4:40 pm | #

You know that the UN states that about 60 thousand Iraqis have been killed since 2003. The far-left only listens to the UN when it suits its purpose, though. Discredited studies claim that 700,000 Iraqis have died. That is nonsense, and it makes no sense. 700,000? Those are WWII-esque civilian casualties. However, in Iraq, America is not mass-bombing cities and villages. American soldiers have strict rules of engagement. We have lost about 3,000 soldiers. If Iraq has lost 700,000, then the most lop-sided kill ration in history exists at about 1-233. You see, these things are 'facts' only if you are predisposed to want to believe them. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 4:45 pm | #

The fact that Iraqis are killing each other more than they are killing Americans, and the fact that insurgents are now blowing their own children up proves one thing: the whole idea that America is a 'colonial oppressor' and that the Iraqis are 'defending thier own' pretty much gets flushed down the toilet. You don't 'defend your own' by blowing your kids up. That is contrary to human nature on a few levels. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 4:50 pm | #

Well, Marxists and enemy-lovers have made this claim of yours for over 40 years, Godzilla. When some Lefty or Islamoid lover actually has begun to believe such insincere sophistry and gone to a good Lefty lawyer asking for a lawsuit to declare all war (even self defense) unconstitutional unless we leave the UN so we can say "formal declaration of war" - the smarter Lefty lawyers say such a suit would make us look like idiots.

The smarter Lefty attornies have had better success defending spies, terrorists, enemy supporters on older laws written in America before the UN existed that predicate wartime treason and higher penalties for espionage and aid and comfort ON a "formal declaration of war".

When dumb lawsuits do get in, saying "illegal war" regarding the legitimacy of the Draft, killing enemy, not treating invading North Koreans, NVA or Islamoids to civilian trials, the courts are quick to slap the anti-Americans down. Cedarford | 03.28.07 - 4:51 pm | #

So, we now change the subject to combatants. You must have done the math, and you must have arrived at a caualty figure similar to 1/233. They pay you well. Since every Iraqi house hold is allowed to possess one rifle, there are many potential combatants, by the way. 3,000 Americans have died since 2003. It doesn't make sense that 700,000 Iraqis have died. As I said earlier, stat star, that is a ratio of 1/233. Way too lop-sdied to make sense. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 5:04 pm | #

The posts made by "Independent Thought" were made by a troll using a regulars name.

fsharp, If you ever served your country you would know that the majority of the miitary does lean to the right. Steve | 03.28.07 - 8:32 am | #

USA Today poll (and I hate polls but you asked for the info) shows 59% of active military claim to be Republicans, 20% claim to be independent and 13% claim to be democrats. Obviously, 7% didn't respond to that part of the survey. Steve | 03.28.07 - 9:10 am | #

I never said 70%; I said majority and that was the case at the time of the last presidential election. Polls will always change and I agree with Kim that the enlisted ranks are more in line with the general population's political party than the officer corps. Steve | 03.28.07 - 9:21 am | #

Kent, your statment shows your ignorance. Bush didn't cut and run in the Gulf War. We went there to remove him from Kuwaitt. We kicked Iraq's butt, finishing the mission set out for us and we left. Obviously, you weren't there. Steve | 03.28.07 - 9:26 am | #

Hardly a "massive" civil war when it involves one city in the entire country. Steve | 03.28.07 - 9:27 am | #

There won't ba any war between Iran and Britain. The Brits have been pussies for a long time now. Anonymous | 03.28.07 - 9:32 am | #

We shouldn't invade Iran. They captured British troops. They should be the ones dropping the bombs all over that wasteland. Steve | 03.28.07 - 9:40 am | #

As Claudo said "and annihiliate the Americans." That would make you so happy. That is your wish and unfortunately, maybe, one day, you will get it. Steve | 03.28.07 - 9:50 am | #

There will be on Iran invasion. You got what you wanted...a congress with no backbone that will not stand up to anyone, anywhere. Don't worrry, with Hitlery in charge, we will have that military whittled down to nothing in a few years. We can close all those military bases here in the USA and turn them into government housing for the "disadvantaged." Steve | 03.28.07 - 9:54 am | #

Cyrus, I have no problem with the Iranian people. It is the government that is the problem. Like I said, the Europeans will do nothing to get their personnel back. Neither will we.

You do realize that we have a VOLUNTEER military, right? I mean, use some logic. The war in Iraq has been going on for 4 years. In four years time, how many soldiers currently serving have either enlisted for the first time or reenlisted? A good amount? I bet so.Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 1:14 pm | #

I was talking with a casual acquaintance the other day, and he said his brother was home on leave for a few days before he left for Iraq.

And I said that must be tought to deal with. He just chuckled and said, it was his 3rd tour in Iraq, and he volunteered for every one of them. sandman | 03.28.07 - 1:17 pm | #

If John Q Iran's government is comprised of terrorists, what does it say about him/her? Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 1:02 pm | #

Yeah, I am sure that's what did it. That's kinda like how you people became so anti-Iranian after Ahmadinejad denied the Haulocost and said Israel needed to be wiped away. I am also sure that America received a fair shake from the Iranian-run state media. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 1:11 pm | #

No, that's the response from you that I anticipated. You have more in common with the Iranians than you think: you are Canadian? So, your government owns the airwaves, too? See how American liberals preach tolerance, yet side with oppression of dissent. I guess that's why you don't like Fox. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 1:20 pm | #I know, I know. I have heard this argument from libs before. The troops are pawns. They are too stupid to know that they may have go to Iraq. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 1:21 pm | #

Liberal: The person who can holler the loudest without knowing what he is hollering about.

You know nothing about me. How to avoid what? It takes a lot of effort to go down to a recruiting office, take a physical, go through MEPS, and sign on the dotted line. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 1:30 pm | #You are very ignorant. Every soldier is a rifleman. That is what 9 weeks of Basic Training does for you. Then, after Basic, you go to AIT, which is specialized training, ie mechanics or truck driver or infantry. Remember, you people know nothing about me. And, Paul, when one decideds to sign on the dotted line at MEPS, are they doing it for "fellow soldiers" they haven't even met yet? Doubt it. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 1:33 pm | #I don't like to see anyone die. The difference between you and I is that I realize that soldiers volunteer to serve. Is it your or my business to tell them not to serve? Doubt it. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 1:38 pm | #

Look, I will tell you why people think you guys are hypocrites. I am sure you have heard about that antiwar demonstration in Portland, Oregon. Atleast those people were consistent. They denounced the war AND the soldiers, since we have a volunteer military force. I disagree with that view, but atleast it makes sense. You guys, on the other hand, demonize Bush and the war, but (atleast claim) to hold the troops in the highest regard. Either you really do have contempt for the troops, or you believe they are just stupid pawns. Which is it? It has to be one or the other. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 1:44 pm | #

Wait just a second. You didn;t ask me how I felt about NG soldiers being deployed. The active duty army and NG are two different things. I don't support the way the NG has been utilized, by the way. When you sign on for the NG, you know that is very different from active duty. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 1:51 pm | #

Will you answer the question, please. If you think the war in Iraq is evil, then how do you feel about our volunteer military? When you sign up, you don't get to pick where you go. This is a legit question. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 1:53 pm | #And that's what I was tring to discern. If the war is eveil, then where does that leave the soldiers of our volunteer force? Are they evil? Pawns? Or something else? Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 1:58 pm | #

I already answered your question. There is a difference between NG, active duty service, Reserves. Independent Thought | 03.28.07 - 2:03 pm | #Bottom line, the Brits were well within the Iraqi territory they patrol. They were seized in an act of war by Iran against the UK. There are indications Iran is violating terms of Geneva in the captivity of the 15 uniformed Royal Navy sailors.

We have our own issues with Iran for it's providing weapons to the terrorists and insurgents that defeat our armor and have killed over 200 Americans and caused 500 casualties from Iranian RPGs, EFPs, and IED infared triggering devices.

The blind Lefty mantra that "diplomacy always solves matters" ignores history, ignores the 444 day long captivity and fake executions and beatings of those US personnel on sovereign US embassy soil under the Wimp's Presidency.

If it does come down to war...it will be time for Lefties to choose sides. No more "50 years ago we were mean to Iran" excuse-making. A shooting war. Lots of people dying, possibly a Draft started - and Lefties will be on notice to show where their loyalties lie. Cedarford | 03.28.07 - 3:02 pm | #

I noted upon reading this post that wherever any fault is found, it's always with Great Britain, FOX, Gibson, but interestingly never with Iran.

Once again Newshounds shows us which side they're on...the Islamic radicals.

Alex when a country's govt has stated there intent to destroy us it doesn't give you much of a choice. Can't you realize there are times when war or extinction are the only two options. anonymous | 03.28.07 - 3:15 pm | #

Was it OK that the hostages had to give up 444 days of their life to the Islamic radicals?

Newshounds and their fellow travelers here never seem to have a harsh word for Islamists, particularly while they (the Islamists) are doing their bidding by acting out against Bush and/or Blair. Enrico Fermi | Homepage | 03.28.07 - 3:40 pm | #

That question might be better asked of claudo, as it was his claim that only "congress gets to decide on whether we go to war"

Godzilla, He didn't. Many times, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that, while not formally declared wars, were explicitly authorized by Congress, short of a formal declaration of war.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions. Steve | 03.28.07 - 3:48 pm | #

I can point to many examples where Newshounds did exactly the opposite of what you claim.

What the Lefties ignore in their haste to stick up for Iran's leaders is that the UN has tasked UK forces to search vessels to verify they comply with UN Security Council directives related to sanctions.

The various wannabe pals of the Mullahs here at Newshounds also neglect to say that UK forces have full support of the Iraqi government to prevent the Iranian weaponry that is killing Iraqi civilians and various military forces in Iraq - Iraqi, US, Brit - from being smuggled in.

I hope a full war is not needed, but if it is it will be pretty unrestrained and overwhelming to ensure the Islamic fanatics don't close the Gulf oil off for more than a few months to avert global depression. We may very well need a Draft if it goes on longer, and I doubt Lefties will mount much effective resistance to it. Not even when it resembles a real war with significant US casulaties vs. the light numbers (relative to real wars) we have taken in Iraq.

As a few realistic posters have noted, this present ME struggle in Iraq is not all Bush. The Democratic Congress could end it in weeks by voting to accept defeat and cut off funds. They don't dare.

If Islamic Iran starts a war, they better not count on Congress to join their American Lefty allies in supporting an Iranian victory. Not with former pacifist liberals screaming about gas at 8 bucks a gallon and mass layoffs in American jobs - until the Iranian threat is ended. Cedarford | 03.28.07 - 3:51 pm | #

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Climate change in this case is politics. Everyone should be scared now and begging the great science of Hoolywood to direct them as to what to do. FreedomLight | 03.22.07 - 11:31 am | #

Yes Final and volcanic activity can still change the global temperatre today as it did in 1883. FreedomLight | 03.22.07 - 11:33 am | #

Bullshit, Canada has been pumping acid in the air for the past 50 years. Lies all lies. FreedomLight | 03.22.07 - 11:34 am | #

Final, I am not a scientist; don't care to be one, either. I have read many reports on global warming. There is a difference of opinion from any scientists, as I posted. The arogance of those on this board is amazing. Steve | 03.22.07 - 11:35 am | #

Of course people should let FOX new hounds do the thinking. After FOX news made the news hounds. YOu are the offspring of Fox News. Poor offspring but offspring nonetheless. FreedomLight | 03.22.07 - 11:36 am | #

Claudo, I guess you missed Gov. Schwazenegger on Rush's show yesterday. He apologized for calling him irrevelant. They agree on a lot of things and have their disagreements on other issues. Fortunately, they still talk out the issues and don't just call others names on a message board like 12 year olds. Steve | 03.22.07 - 11:37 am | #

fsharp, the link I posted from Canada was interesting. I don't personally know the scientists but it does appear he is not on the payroll for any corporation or government. Steve | 03.22.07 - 11:40 am | #

They do have opinions sharp, they also try to manipulate minds and scare people. Thus all of the talk about day after tomorrow where the movie covers both global warming and global cooling all within two hours. FreedomLight | 03.22.07 - 11:50 am | #

Bottom line is this Al Gore will want tax payers to float the bill here and if Gore and Hollywood believe in it they should pay. FreedomLight | 03.22.07 - 11:52 am | #

More terror attacked were carried out United States soil under Bill Clinton. FreedomLight | 03.22.07 - 12:06 pm

Claudo, the concesious amongst those you cite say there are. But you can find hundreds who say there isn't. It's opinion. There are no facts.

And remember, when ice in your glass melts, the water level drops, not increases. Ice displaces more water than water does. So you don't get rising water levels, you get dropping levels.

I can see it now. The environmentalists have come up with a new theory on why the Titanic sank. Global warming broke free the ice burg and set it in the colision path of the great ship. I guess we shouldn't have invented steam ships back then.

You won't get Boortz, Hannity or Limbaugh out of their limos. THat's a fact. But they are not preaching about global warming either. So it's not hypocritacal.

Gore is a hypocrit because he uses more energy in one month than the typical family uses all year yet he still tells me I have to use less. Why doesn't he have to use less? Marty | 03.22.07 - 12:33 pm | #

And here is an example of why this is bunk. This is from MSNBC.com on Oct 23, 2006. Unedited.

By Jerry AdlerUpdated: 2:41 p.m. MT Oct 23, 2006Oct. 23, 2006 - In April, 1975, in an issue mostly taken up with stories about the collapse of the American-backed government of South Vietnam, NEWSWEEK published a small back-page article about a very different kind of disaster. Citing "ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically," the magazine warned of an impending "drastic decline in food production." Political disruptions stemming from food shortages could affect "just about every nation on earth." Scientists urged governments to consider emergency action to head off the terrible threat of . . . well, if you had been following the climate-change debates at the time, you'd have known that the threat was: global cooling. Marty | 03.22.07 - 12:36 pm | #

How is listening to blowhards like hannity any different than listening to the hollywood elite who tell you to cut back. Why does melissa etheridge run a video saying take the bus, walk, ride a bike when you damn well know she has never done that?

If you are going to tell people to do these things, you should also do them yourself. It's that simple. I tell my son not to steal and I don't do that as a way of setting an example.

I don't mind if people voice opinion. But don't be a hypocrit when doing it. Why is it so hard for liberals to understand this? Marty | 03.22.07 - 12:39 pm | #

It's one article that I found in a 30 second google search and who cares what his credentials are. He wrote the article in 2006. It's not the guy in Newsweek who wrote the article back in 1975.

I love how headstrong everyone is on one particular topic and ar not willing to even explor any alternate theory.

Why is it an issue? Just because Gore said it was? If two harvard scientists disagree on global warming, which one is right? You see, there is no way of knowing. We may have to say I told you so in 30 years. But in 30 years, if we have done nothing and it's not any warmer, then what will you say? Marty | 03.22.07 - 12:41 pm | #

Good point on the aids. I'm not saying global warming is not happening. I'm saying 30 years ago the panic amongst environmentalist was global cooling. Now because of SUVs it's global warming?

IN a nut shell, I want my suv to get better gas milage. Not because I want to save the environment, but because I want to save money.

I want renewable power sources to save money. I want nuclear power to save money. But the environmentalists want us to cut today and want to give nothing to help do that.

Why cant we drill in anwar? Why can't we drill off the coast of Florida? Casto is getting ready to do that. In the short term, we drill for oil in the US and we reduce our dependancy on foreigh oil. Which reduces the opportunity to fund terrorism.

Then, while gas prices drop and people have more cash, we continue to work on other alternatives. One day, in the next generation, we have cars that run on water and solar power. THen we have eliminated most of the problems.

But we can't do nuclear or drill because of the liberal environmentalists. It's that simple. You want an end result today but are willing to do nothing to help get there and we can't just flip a switch and get there that quick. Marty | 03.22.07 - 12:46 pm | #

show me a printed list of all the scientists who say there is global warming and a list of those that say there isnt. No one can do that.

It's all opinion here people. You cite one group on climetology and we can find another group that says the opposit. Who really knows. The discussion in the begining was not on if global warming exists or not. It was on Gore being a hypocrit because of his actions.

It's this simple. If you tell me not to do something and then you still do it, you are a hypocrit. Stated so simply that republicans and democrats can understand it.

It's easy for Al to put this to bed. Start using less energy. Not buying carbon offsets and using green energy. Just use less period. THat's what he wants us to do, so lead by example. Fly commercial, you are not involved in national secrets any more (not taht any vice president really is) so you don't need private jets. Fly with the public and you can even go first class if you like. At least you are on a commercial jet, not a private one.

Oh, and check the news story from early in the week that says you use more energy manufacturing and owning a toyota hybrid than you do a hummer due to the life expenctency. How is this explained? Marty | 03.22.07 - 1:30 pm | #

"And what if Al Gore were a republican? I bet that every single one of these trolls would be backing him up 924%. hannity and the rest of the faux idiots would be preaching to their viewers to do their part. "

Absolutely right. Hannity might criticize republican's some. But 99% of his comments are taken directly from the talking points the republicans put out. But there are democrats just like that. Combs is no different, he tows the party line every chance he can.

As a republican (a moderate one because there are definitely liberal issues I agree with like Terri Schivo, abortion, etc)I don't put a lot of emphasis on Hannity because he is a mouthpiece for republicans. oh wait, it's "regan conservitism" as he likes to point out. Limbaugh is just as bad, everything is always the libs fault.

I stick with Boorts, Larry Elder and some others for a more balanced look at thigns. Marty | 03.22.07 - 1:33 pm | #

I stated in an earlier post that I don't think global warming is non-existant. But I don't think this bandwagon everyone has jumped on all of a sudden and follows lock-step with Gore is accurate. I'm waiting to review the info myself and until then, if you want to tell me to do more for the environment, then lead by example. Anything else is hypocrytical. Marty | 03.22.07 - 1:42 pm | #

Again, this is one story that is pro-global warming. Why not post some anti-global warming stories. They are out there? And John, if gore wants to fly, he can buy the required number of tickets for him and the secret service. THey don't need to kick people off. He's an american like everyone else in this country leagally. Marty | 03.22.07 - 1:43 pm | #

Independant thought,

See my post with the article from Newsweek. The story was published. Enough said. Marty | 03.22.07 - 1:45 pm | #

University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen, an expert in thermaldynamics, makes a point about the difficulty in assessing the rise in global temperatures:

“It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth,” said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics. “A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate”.

He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature—and any conclusion drawn from it—is more political than scientific. Bob | Homepage | 03.22.07 - 2:29 pm | #

Does this mean this will become FOX/NBC/MSNBC/CNBC News hounds?Hell why not accuse all of the United States news media of being bias?All commie and terrorist countries will hop on your bandwagon!!! FreedomLight | 03.22.07 - 3:18 pm | #

Yes, and at one time 100 percent of the people on earth believed the world was flat. That didn't quite work out either. Not only is Al Gore a hypocrite, but he is a greedy phoney. He is making crazy dollars off of the global warming scam at $150,000 per appearance. Hey, let's buy some Carbon Credits from Al Gore!

When Al Gore lost his bid to become the country’s first “Environment President,” many of us thought the “global warming” scare would finally come to a well-deserved end. That hasn’t happened, despite eight good reasons this scam should finally be put to rest.

It’s B-a-a-ck!

Similar scares orchestrated by radical environmentalists in the past--such as Alar, global cooling, the “population bomb,” and electromagnetic fields--were eventually debunked by scientists and no longer appear in the speeches or platforms of public officials. The New York Times recently endorsed more widespread use of DDT to combat malaria, proving Rachel Carson’s anti-pesticide gospel is no longer sacrosanct even with the liberal elite.

The scientific case against catastrophic global warming is at least as strong as the case for DDT, but the global warming scare hasn’t gone away. President Bush is waffling on the issue, rightly opposing the Kyoto Protocol and focusing on research and voluntary projects, but wrongly allowing his administration to support calls for creating “transferrable emission credits” for greenhouse gas reductions. Such credits would build political and economic support for a Kyoto-like cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

At the state level, some 23 states have already adopted caps on greenhouse gas emissions or goals for replacing fossil fuels with alternative energy sources. These efforts are doomed to be costly failures, as a new Heartland Policy Study by Dr. Jay Lehr and James Taylor documents. Instead of concentrating on balancing state budgets, some legislators will be working to pass their own “mini-Kyotos.”

Eight Reasons to End the Scam

Concern over “global warming” is overblown and misdirected. What follows are eight reasons why we should pull the plug on this scam before it destroys billions of dollars of wealth and millions of jobs.

1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.

2. Our most reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Satellite readings of temperatures in the lower troposphere (an area scientists predict would immediately reflect any global warming) show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend, and these stations do not cover the entire globe, are often contaminated by heat generated by nearby urban development, and are subject to human error.

3. Global climate computer models are too crude to predict future climate changes. All predictions of global warming are based on computer models, not historical data. In order to get their models to produce predictions that are close to their designers’ expectations, modelers resort to “flux adjustments” that can be 25 times larger than the effect of doubling carbon dioxide concentrations, the supposed trigger for global warming. Richard A. Kerr, a writer for Science, says “climate modelers have been ‘cheating’ for so long it’s almost become respectable.”

4. The IPCC did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. Alarmists frequently quote the executive summaries of reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations organization, to support their predictions. But here is what the IPCC’s latest report, Climate Change 2001, actually says about predicting the future climate: “The Earth’s atmosphere-ocean dynamics is chaotic: its evolution is sensitive to small perturbations in initial conditions. This sensitivity limits our ability to predict the detailed evolution of weather; inevitable errors and uncertainties in the starting conditions of a weather forecast amplify through the forecast. As well as uncertainty in initial conditions, such predictions are also degraded by errors and uncertainties in our ability to represent accurately the significant climate processes.”

5. A modest amount of global warming, should it occur, would be beneficial to the natural world and to human civilization. Temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period (roughly 800 to 1200 AD), which allowed the Vikings to settle presently inhospitable Greenland, were higher than even the worst-case scenario reported by the IPCC. The period from about 5000-3000 BC, known as the “climatic optimum,” was even warmer and marked “a time when mankind began to build its first civilizations,” observe James Plummer and Frances B. Smith in a study for Consumer Alert. “There is good reason to believe that a warmer climate would have a similar effect on the health and welfare of our own far more advanced and adaptable civilization today.”

6. Efforts to quickly reduce human greenhouse gas emissions would be costly and would not stop Earth’s climate from changing. Reducing U.S. carbon dioxide emissions to 7 percent below 1990’s levels by the year 2012--the target set by the Kyoto Protocol--would require higher energy taxes and regulations causing the nation to lose 2.4 million jobs and $300 billion in annual economic output. Average household income nationwide would fall by $2,700, and state tax revenues would decline by $93.1 billion due to less taxable earned income and sales, and lower property values. Full implementation of the Kyoto Protocol by all participating nations would reduce global temperature in the year 2100 by a mere 0.14 degrees Celsius.

7. Efforts by state governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are even more expensive and threaten to bust state budgets. After raising their spending with reckless abandon during the 1990s, states now face a cumulative projected deficit of more than $90 billion. Incredibly, most states nevertheless persist in backing unnecessary and expensive greenhouse gas reduction programs. New Jersey, for example, collects $358 million a year in utility taxes to fund greenhouse gas reduction programs. Such programs will have no impact on global greenhouse gas emissions. All they do is destroy jobs and waste money.

8. The best strategy to pursue is “no regrets.” The alternative to demands for immediate action to “stop global warming” is not to do nothing. The best strategy is to invest in atmospheric research now and in reducing emissions sometime in the future if the science becomes more compelling. In the meantime, investments should be made to reduce emissions only when such investments make economic sense in their own right.

This strategy is called “no regrets,” and it is roughly what the Bush administration has been doing. The U.S. spends more on global warming research each year than the entire rest of the world combined, and American businesses are leading the way in demonstrating new technologies for reducing and sequestering greenhouse gas emissions.

Time for Common Sense

The global warming scare has enabled environmental advocacy groups to raise billions of dollars in contributions and government grants. It has given politicians (from Al Gore down) opportunities to pose as prophets of doom and slayers of evil corporations. And it has given bureaucrats at all levels of government, from the United Nations to city councils, powers that threaten our jobs and individual liberty.

It is time for common sense to return to the debate over protecting the environment. An excellent first step would be to end the “global warming” scam.

How about them Martians in their SUVs melting the polar ice caps on Mars, Muddog?

How come that can be explained by the wobble of Mars' orbit but Earths' warming trend can't be explained by the wobble of Earths' orbit or by increased solar activity?

What good does it to reduce the carbon footprint of the US when India and China plan to have 775 new coal-fired plants online within the next 8 years? Jabber40 | 03.22.07 - 8:22 am | #

These movies were all made in 1998, Just about two years before a presidential election.An Inconvenient Truth comes out on 2007 just about 20 months before election. The idea is for the left to pry everyone's attention away from the real threat of terroeism and cast your attention to SciFi. There is no positive proof that Global Warming is caused by humans. Al Gore looked like an over weight loon yesterday. FreedomLight | 03.22.07 - 8:45 am | #

Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC's, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

The following remarks were delivered at the Risk: Regulation and Reality Conference by Dr. Tim Patterson, Professor of Geology at Carleton University. The conference was co-hosted by Tech Central Station and was held on October 7, 2004 in Toronto, ON.

I am a Quaternary geologist by profession. That is to say that my research interests are focused primarily on about the last 2 million years of Earth's history. An important aspect of my research is assessing past climate conditions. Thus I am also a paleoclimatologist. Earth's climate has varied considerably during the past 2 million years or so as indicated by the more than 33 glacial major advances and retreats that have occurred through this interval. Based on geologic paleoclimatic data it is obvious that climate is and has been very variable. Thus the only real constant about climate is change. It changes continually.http://www.tcsdaily.com/article FreedomLight | 03.22.07 - 8:50 am | #

This should never have been a hearing. Where was Gore during the Roman ages when the earth was warmer than now and for a mush longer period, what about the Middle ages, warmer than the average... Damn horses and cows. Gore should have been there to have them all slaughtered and we all have be eating fish now...

It's by far the most likely cause,Most Likely, that's the measure that you use to determine validity and your telling me to grow up? FreedomLight | 03.22.07 - 9:00 am | #

So is everyone saying that ANYONE who doesn't buy into the hype about catastrophic global warming - like thosands of scientists - is somehow a tool of the the right wing and everone who believes is right?? charles grashow | 03.22.07 - 9:02 am | #

NPR broadcast a debate about global warming. Before the debate they conducted a survey to see what the audience believed. After the debate the poll was taken again. It looks like the debate changed some minds.

The proposition was "Global warming is not a crisis"

Before the debate audience members disagreed by nearly 2 to 1:57.32% to 29.88%

After the debate a plurality of audience members agreed with the skeptics:46.22% to 42.22%

The rest of the information on the debate. Interesting read from both sides of the story. Steve | 03.22.07 - 9:41 am | #

Muddog, as I said before I am busy doing other things. This conversation, while interesting, isn't exactly my highest priority.

As to your question, the reason Venus is warmer and has less radiation than Mercury is because Venus has an atmosphere that traps the heat and blocks the radiation and Mercury doesn't. You might be interested to know that theoretical models indicate that about 3 billion years ago, the sun was about 75% as bright as it was today and that the only reason life could be sustained on this planet was due to the large quantities of greenhouse gases that were able to trap more heat(much more gases than exist today).

While that does prove that greenhouse gases can warm the planet, it also proves that the Sun is getting warmer.

The truth is we don't have enough data to prove anything yet. It's all just theories. Have you read the April 28,1975 Newsweek article on global cooling titled "The Cooling World"? The media isn't interested in the truth, they are only interested in ratings and circulation.

BTW, the NY Times is now questioning the science behind Gore's movie. They seem to think that it is as best extreme alarmism. Jabber40 | 03.22.07 - 9:47 am | #

No, that was an original thought. Unlike you! Who needs a site like this to give you your "thoughts"! Usedtobealiberal | 03.22.07 - 9:49 am | #

1. Even if Al Gore is the biggest hypocrite on earth, owns a fleet of gas guzzeling SUVs, takes private jets, drinks gas - whatever, it has no bearing what-so-effen-ever that his warnings about global warming are not true!!!

Get it conservative cretins???? Comprehende' Idiots?

If you are going to "talk the talk", you should "walk the walk"!

30 years ago, I was around, they were scaring us into another ice age.

What will be the next big scare? Usedtobealiberal | 03.22.07 - 9:58 am | #

Ah, maybe you should build yourself a bomb shelter, like in the 50's so you can hide your head underground, and wait for the world to melt! Usedtobealiberal | 03.22.07 - 9:59 am | #

I don't speak for the right or left. I speak for what I believe. I agree the earth has warmed up. It has increased in temperature by 1 degree in the last 100 years. Who is to say that it will not cool by 1 degree in the next 100 years? We don't know...science doesn't know. In the 70s there was going to be this "next ice age" coming soon. It is the hysteria that comes with these "theories" that get so out of control. Steve | 03.22.07 - 10:00 am | #

The right wants to scare us with global jihad.The left wants to scare us with global warming.The media plays right along with both sides...ignoring truth for content.This is nothing new, apocalyptic scenarios have been a round since the dawn of civilization. SkullCracker | 03.22.07 - 10:05 am | #

We really think we as humans are special. Our little bit of whatever we do here on earth has very little impact on the solar system. We can't change the temperature of the sun by driving a hybrid car or "buying" carbon offsets. Sure, we can do better on keeping our air and water cleaner. If the USA stopped producing any pollution would it really make a difference? What about all the other developing countries? How are we going to get them to comply? Military force? Steve | 03.22.07 - 10:14 am | #

Man, did you guys read what Al Gore thinks of you? How does that make you feel? Al for Prez!!! Anonymous | 03.22.07 - 10:18 am | #

If the USA stopped producing any pollution would it really make a difference?

No, China and India plan to have 775 new coal-fired plants online in the next 8 years. "With natural gas prices expected to continue rising, 58 other nations have 340 new coal-fired plants in various stages of development. They are expected to go online in a decade or so. Malaysia, Japan, Indonesia, Thailand, and Turkey are all planning significant new coal-fired power additions. Germany also plans to build eight coal plants with 6,000 megawatts capacity.

But China is the key. "The Chinese will surpass the coal-fired generating capacity and the CO2 emissions of the US in the next couple of years," Mr. McIlvaine says.

Hit by blackouts and power restrictions for 18 months, China has been scrambling to relieve that pressure. Scores of unauthorized power projects about which little is known have sprouted nationwide - along with hundreds of official projects, McIlvaine says. Because of this, even careful estimates could be low, both he and Bergesen say." - http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/12...01s04- sten.html Jabber40 | 03.22.07 - 10:24 am | #

Or, if you make up scary information and produce it in a Hollywood film, present it as fact, get awarded for your lies, your voice is GOLD with the liberals. They will hang on your every word and then mandate you to buy carbon offsets from their company! Anonymous | 03.22.07 - 10:29 am

I don't think I would give a "B" to someone who profits from a strip mining operation that releases millions of pounds of potentially toxic chemicals into the environment, why do you? Jabber40 | 03.22.07 - 10:33 am | #

How are you going to prove Al Gore's lies? Oh yeah, you don't have to since he admits he lies for the good of those American citizens who live in that bubble of unreality created by who???? Oh yeah, by himself with the help of News Hounds and MoveOn.org.

Aren't you guys even a little bit insulted by what he thinks of Americans? (A question to U.S. citizens who post here, if there are any) Anonymous | 03.22.07 - 10:35 am | #

If you lived here in America, you might have heard Al Gore's admission of his lies. Now pop out of that bubble and find the link. Anonymous | 03.22.07 - 10:36 am | #

Well now that Al Gore has admitted to lying about the seriousness of the problem, how much time and money do you think we should spend trying to find a solution to the problem.

I think I would rather a non-partisan, honest scientist give us a solution. Anonymous | 03.22.07 - 10:40 am | #

Try, let's get a group of scientist who agree on a solution that doesn't mandate us to buy carbon offsets from Al Gore. Anonymous | 03.22.07 - 10:43 am | #

Yeah, I'd rather we just mandate the poor to buy those carbon offsets from Al Gore so he can continue with the lifestyle that he and his family have become accustom to. Anonymous | 03.22.07 - 10:46 am | #

That works, they are both in the entertainment field and need to maintain those posh lifestyles. They should collaberate and Arnold could star in his own epic green film!!! Anonymous | 03.22.07 - 10:50 am | #

That works, they are both in the entertainment field and need to maintain those posh lifestyles. They should collaberate and Arnold could star in his own epic green film!!! Anonymous | 03.22.07 - 10:50 am | #

Final, The "advantaged?" I don't care if you make 10K or 100K a year you can still do your part to reduce waste. Why does it always have to be seperation between the "disadvantaged" (poor, uneducated, or lazy) and the "advantaged" (educated, wealthy, lucky)? Steve | 03.22.07 - 10:53 am | #

And I agree with you on it is a global problem. Not something just the republicans or democrates can fix. Steve | 03.22.07 - 10:54 am | #

Yes, paint a glum picture of how awful we have it here in America. Poor, poor Americans. I wonder if any other country views us in the same light? I don't see them handing us any money to help with this problem you think we have. Oh yeah, that's because we ARE the greatest nation on earth! Anonymous | 03.22.07 - 10:55 am | # Yeah, I'd rather we just mandate the poor to buy those carbon offsets from Al Gore so he can continue with the lifestyle that he and his family have become accustom to.Anonymous | 03.22.07

fsharp, they are not the ones preaching that we must cut back on emissions. It is owlgore that is doing all of that. Him and his partner Breck Girl Edwards. Both live in huge mansions and spend more each month on ulitities than the average american does in a year. I don't have a problem with that. They earned the money and can afford it; more power to them. What I disagree with is to tell me and other Americans we must cut back when they are not. Steve | 03.22.07 - 10:59 am | #

Yeah, so I'm thinking people with less money do more to conserve out of pure necessity while the pigs continue to consume and then buy carbon offsets to relieve themselves of those pesky guilty feelings they must have. Anonymous | 03.22.07 - 11:00 am | #

fsharp, this is OT but if the republicans are the biggest roadblock and the dems control congress what does that say about the dems? What have they done in the first 100 days? It was touted as being a "new congress" and they would get things done. They are bogged down in pushing scandal after scandal and not getting anything done that they promised. Steve | 03.22.07 - 11:04 am | #

Troll this johnnyboy. Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years."

Scientific technologies do change and the results are not always the same. There is plenty of evidence that what owlgore spouts is wrong. Steve | 03.22.07 - 11:22 am | #

We may have more concensus on climate change if the white house would stop censoring and watering down Climate Change reports,On the other hand Al Gore beefs them up. FreedomLight | 03.22.07 - 11:27 am | #

Oh yea, the great conspiracy theory again. Bush is good; he can collect and edit all these scientific reports before they are presented to the public. He is good! Steve | 03.22.07 - 11:28 am | #

Let's all stop driving our SUV's and let the billions of people in other countries watse fossil fuels and pollute the air. Brilliant.

claudo, You don't live in the USA do you? What other country has the opportunities that are offered here? Where do you see people continue to die trying to get into other than America? I am sure there are places, I just don't hear about it on CNN, CBS, NBC, or FOX. Steve | 03.22.07 - 11:31 am | #